Professor Alleges University Broke Its Own Rules to Deny Him Tenure to Retaliate After He Reported Race Discrimination
Northwestern University must defend its decision to deny tenure to a Black professor who alleges the university broke its own rules to end his career after he reported race discrimination. Last week, a federal court denied Northwestern’s motion to dismiss his breach of contract claim. Jeff and his law firm represent the professor.
The contract claim now proceeds alongside discrimination and retaliation claims, which Northwestern never moved to dismiss.
A Brilliant Poet, a Unanimous Vote
According to the complaint, every outside reviewer praised the professor’s work, and Northwestern’s own Ad Hoc Committee called him “an extremely promising and indeed brilliant poet.” He is the first Black faculty member in Northwestern’s graduate creative writing program to stand for tenure in the Department of English.
Yet his department voted 27-0 against him.
A professor denied tenure loses his job, and the denial follows him to every university where he applies next.
How It Started
According to the complaint, a graduate student led a campaign against the professor in his workshops, and a student announced a plan to get him fired. The English Department Chair later described comments in his course evaluations, in writing, as “racially denigrating” and “racist.”
The professor reported to the Director of Creative Writing. According to the complaint, the Director told him to “man up” and “be more African.”
In February 2023, the professor complained to the Dean about discriminatory and retaliatory treatment. The Dean then wrote a memorandum recording his reports and explaining the fall evaluations. The memo was to be shared with anyone who evaluated his teaching.
The Retaliation
When the professor returned from leave in May 2023, the Department Chair withdrew the department’s written support for his early tenure bid and cited “a pattern of issues” in his teaching. Those issues included the same workshops where he had been targeted. He then filed a complaint with Northwestern’s Office of Civil Rights.
When he applied for tenure, he invoked a handbook rule requiring recusal of faculty with a “documented disputatious relationship” with the candidate. According to the complaint, the Dean’s Office refused, and faculty involved in his discrimination complaints helped vote him down and prepare the department’s letter.
The Letter
The department’s seven-page letter went to the Dean, the Provost, the Ad Hoc Committee, the University Committee on Tenure and Promotion, and the Board of Trustees. According to the complaint, it contained false accusations, including that admitted students said the professor told them they “did not belong.” The complaint alleges that never happened.
No one asked the professor about any of these accusations. The letter itself conceded that “any one of these events could have been misreported or susceptible to an alternate explanation.” The complaint also alleges the Dean’s memorandum never reached the faculty and committees who judged him.
Northwestern denied tenure, then cut off the professor’s appeal and recommended against his reappointment.
The Ruling
A federal court held that the professor plausibly alleged Northwestern’s faculty handbooks created enforceable promises. The court pointed to the requirement that the chair “look into the accuracy” of student complaints, and the rule about recusal. The court found the complaint stated a claim that Northwestern violated both provisions.
The court dismissed the defamation per se claim under Illinois’s innocent construction rule, reasoning that in the context of a tenure review, the letter’s statements could reasonably be read as addressing his qualifications for tenure. The dismissal was without prejudice, with leave to amend the claim.
The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin covered the ruling. When asked for comment, Jeff said, “Professor Shanahan wants what every faculty member is promised, to be judged on his work and not punished for speaking up. The ruling allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed, and we look forward to presenting the full record.”
Why This Matters
Universities have detailed tenure rules because tenure decisions are final. Northwestern holds its faculty to those rules. This ruling means Northwestern can be held to them too.
The case also shows how retaliation usually works. It rarely arrives as an open threat. It arrives after an employee speaks up, as a sudden “pattern of issues,” complaints nobody checks, and a record missing the facts that would explain them.
The case is Shanahan v. Northwestern University, et al., No. 26 C 5469 (N.D. Ill.).
Did something change at work after you reported discrimination? Contact Jeff.
NOTICE: The information in this post comes from allegations in a legal complaint and a court ruling filed in the public record. This is a contested matter. The defendants are expected to deny the allegations, and no court or jury has decided whether they are true as of the date of this post.
